Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
just as in they should have the right to decide whether or not to approve any marriage. also not sure government policy should dictate the rules of a religion.
whether or not they marry mixed-race couples?
but you said "they should have the right to decide whether or not to approve any marriage".
if a marriage does not fit within these beliefs i think they should have the right to decide whether or not to marry them, and the same for any other religion.
but i believe it was inferred, and it's what i meant.
sometimes quite extreme. Therefore this is not measurable or definable
They do get to decide based on whatever they like, don't they?
I'm now enlightened to the point of being comfortable giving a talk to people about this subject.
i read it in an article about sham marriages, at least applied to Christianity anyway. i'm not sure about other religions.
About subjective morality? Does your opinion on whether or not something should be legal rest upon whether or not it actually *is* legal? Can one not ask the question "Should ministers have the right to decide whether or not to approve any marriage on whatever grounds they like?" if they do actually have that right?
On the one hand, I dont agree that gay people should be excluded from marriage. On the other, I have no idea why you'd want to intergrate yourself into a framework which abhors your existence. The church should be made seperate from any social policy, and they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
since I'm not sure I even agree with the point that I clumsily made
I'm looking at you Mr Hunt
We need to properly rip the CofE out of the state. Then we can just have civil marriage available to everyone who's able to consent and not too closely related to their prospective spouse.
People who want religious ceremonies could negotiate with people who provide religious ceremonies, and the providers would be free to turn them down on whatever discriminatory "religious" grounds because for better or worse that's kinda what freedom of religion entails.
Whilst the C of E is something of a state organ the above doesn't properly work - if you want the freedom to discriminate in ways you wouldn't be allowed to in the rest of society you need to be identifiably different and separate from other organisations in society, not sitting in the house of lords, not getting your new church roof paid for by people living in nearby houses under ancient laws, none of that shit.
But outside their fucking little buildings of shit they shouldn't be able to say shit about shit. The shits.
To my mind if gay marriage gets equal legal status to straight marriage then it should be protected under the 2010 equality act. I can understand the political reasons why an exception is being made but I don't think it's logical.
see male voice choirs etc
And ironically I think that, whilst not defined as such, pretty much how a ban on gay marriage exists at the moment outside that law - that it's a protected characteristic of marriage that it takes place between a man and a woman.
If marriage can be between men and women, men and men or women and women then there's no longer a protected characteristic so I can't really see how they'd sustain that.
Ctrl + f 'exceptions' on the Equality Act 2010 gives 19 returns. Obviously this isn't one because gay marriage wasn't legal at the time, but there is, for example, the following: 'A does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, by refusing to solemnise, in accordance with a form, rite or ceremony as described in sub-paragraph (3), the marriage of a person (B) if A reasonably believes that B's gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.'
and hence not allowed to marry because a protected characteristic of marriage is that it exists between a man and a woman, which obviously would not hold if gay marriage was legalised?
From the aforementioned Gender Recognition Act 2004: 'Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).'
In that case it could fit in with existing equality laws. Still think it's discriminatory and shouldn't be allowed though.
should they wish to uphold that aspect of their religion.
I always side with the one that's not trying to discriminate against something else.
I mean you could reasonably argue that certain UK laws demand that people, no matter what their religion, set certain views aside in order to obey the laws of the country. Which is unfortunate but I do think the laws of the country and the overriding democratic principles of equality and fairness to all should take precedence in these circumstances.
How do you feel about that? Being, as it is, protected by the Equality Act 2010. And how are you applying the 'lesser of two evils' argument? Are you saying ministers who are religiously opposed to gay marriage possibly being forced to perform same-sex ceremonies is a lesser evil than gay couples possibly not being allowed to marry in the precise church they want to marry in? By a minister who doesn't actually want to marry them, at that?
But yes. I am saying it's a lesser evil.
Let's say no one wants to be married by someone who doesn't want to marry them (not necessarily true, but believable) - you think it would be important to enshrine that right in law anyway? A right none of the directly involved parties want, ahead of a right that at least *some* of the directly involved parties want?
'but it's okay - you can still discriminate if you really, really want to'.
but the fact you're discriminating against they're right to discriminate.
I've always presumed that Christian ministers of all denominations are able to refuse religious marriage services to any couple they deem inappropriate. Now that I think about it though, I'm basing that on a very small amount of anecdotal and exclusively Catholic knowledge. I'll admit to having a pretty big hole in my knowledge here- as far as I knew, heterosexual couples don't have any legally-enshrined 'right' to a religious ceremony. I'm open to people correcting me.
so you're right. No one has a pre-ordained right to a church wedding as they are effectively a private bussiness (really bad example there) in the same way a club can refuse you entry for wearing trainers or for no reason at all.
It is totally right that registrars get sacked if they refuse to perform civil partnerships, it is a state ceremony in a state building. But with religiousy types, that's not quite the case. You're offering a service to a restricted group - your believers, in a non public space (lets ignore the CoE for now). At the moment a Catholic priest can (rightly) refuse to marry you if you're not a Catholic, if you're gay he should be able to refuse because by being openly gay you're not in good standing.
Really this would all be solved if marriage was totally divorced (lol!!11!) from the state and gave you no rights at all, then people could just do what they wanted.
Religous marital status is conferred at the discretion of the religous group itself. Application of equality law within private groups often seems a bit spotty as to when it's actually appropriate, and this seems to be the case with religous groups too.
I think this demonstrates quite nicely the absurdity of the church's position on the whole thing. As far as I can tell, they need not be affected by legislative changes in the slightest: they're just angry about the appropriation of the word 'marriage' for state-conferred legal status.
Current thinking within the coalition is so confused on this. On one hand, yes you're right in that the whole thing could be solved in a heartbeat by removing any rights issues. On the other, IDS has just launched a renewed effort to introduce further legal rights for married couples in the hope that they can reverse falling marriage rates and the associated decline of society (an argument so muddled I don't know where to start, but I suspect he realises it's bullshit too). And then you have the tories loudly decrying gay marriage at their conference this week (I had a message this morning telling me that the two most popular stalls have been pro-fur-trading and anti-gay marriage. great.)
And none of it should have one jot of legal standing.
And those weddings can't currently be same sex, right?
Or is that not correct?
(and I'm only saying that because I don't know about other places) the religous and legal aspects of getting married are essentially separate things. The religous bit doesn't confer any extra legal rights on you over the registration with the state.
...but legal bits are performed by religious bodies? i.e. they do the job of a registry office, but with added legally superfluous bells and whistles, according to taste? i.e. they are, for all intents and purposes, just a fancy dan legal registrar?
before i go any further, is ask the above true?
you're not legally married when the vicar says ''you are man and wife'' or whatever, you're legally married when you go to the back room and sign the marrige register,
The religious bod can do the registering at the same time as the bells and whistles ceremony: I think this is true in the case of CofE and some others, but some religions need ministers to be licensed. Or they just can have a registrar present at the ceremony. Or head to the registry office.
is fine with this sort of thing so if someone wanted a christian marriage they could probably go there